2 ms·
> One does not require permission from the copyright holder merely to use software one already possesses, so long as one does not distribute it. This seems rig
by dathinab 3y ago
> One does not require permission from the copyright holder merely to use software one already possesses, so long as one does not distribute it.
This seems right but also wrong.
I mean it would mean that I have the right to own and use illegal movie copies, as long as I don't further distribute them. Which AFIK isn't the case.
- Karellen 3y agoDo you think that someone should receive a harsher punishment the more times they've watched/read/heard a copy illegally of a work? Or receive less of a punishment if they make a copy (or a hundred copies) illegally but never watch it? Whether or not it makes sense to you, under current copyright law, it is the act of making copies which is restricted and regulated. If you make a copy illegally, that's what you'll be punished for. If you receive a copy of a work, do you know if the copy was made by someone authorised to do so? If you reasonably believe that the copy was made legitimately, you will very likely not be held accountable for owning and using that copy. No matter the legality of its provenance. It is the person who made the copy who will be (or should be) accountable.